The Angels that Sinned

I have this theory about the angels (sons of God) who mated with humans in Genesis 6:1-4.  

First, there is a video by Dr. Peter Gentry on YouTube that points out that the reference to Giants in Genesis 6 reveals that the giants on the earth existed before the fallen angels had offspring.  These giants were on the earth before and after the flood.  He suggests that this information is to correct the view that the giants were the offspring of angels.  

I think the giants (Nephilim) were humans who were taller than normal. Three to four feet taller than the average tall person would be a giant. They were not the result of gigantism or giantism caused by a pituitary disorder, such as Robert Wadlow who was 8 feet 11 inches tall (said to be the tallest man on record).  There have been those who do not or did not have the disorder that are over 7 feet tall, such as Angus MacAskill who was 7' 9"; he was/ is the tallest on record without the pituitary disorder.  We know famous basketball players who were 7 feet and taller. Goliath could have been 9 feet 6 inches. It could be that the giants of the Old Testament reached nearly 10 feet tall, but that probably was the upper limit.  Before the flood, when the environment was better, and people lived longer and probably were healthier, that upper limit could be reached, but I doubt there were 30 foot tall people

Angus MacAskill 

Concerning the angels of Genesis 6, it's hard to understand how spirits could have sex with humans.  I am thinking that maybe when an angelic being leaves their realm (domain) and enters into our 3-dimensional realm, that God has designed it so that they are transformed into a functioning flesh and blood human being.  The angels can enter by will, but once they enter, they take on human biology, but this was only meant to be temporary. There is no such thing as Angel DNA that could be passed on to humans--they had to become human to procreate with humans.  Those angels who entered and chose to stay and cohabit with humans left their proper domain (Jude 6).  This would have been in violation of God's will.  They became human but retained their self-awareness and superior knowledge. They took human wives and had children.  The children were human, but the knowledge of the angels could be passed on to their children which gave them an advantage over others becoming mighty men on the earth.  

In connection with the flood, God cast these offending angels into chains of darkness.  It could be that they transitioned back to their realm to escape the flood, which would have killed them in their human form. This judgment of these angels would have kept them from a repeat offense in the new post-flood earth and serve as a deterrent to other angels who have access into our 3-dimensional realm.

The demons are other fallen angels who do not enter into our 3-dimensional realm in human form but still have an influence in their own spirit form into our realm while staying in their own realm (which I would call "the spirit realm").  Satan is a fallen angel, but he did not cohabit as a human with humans, but he can function in his spirit form in our realm from his realm.  I question the view that says the demons are the disembodied spirits of those whose bodies were destroyed by the flood being the half-breed children of both the the fallen angels and their human wives, and after the flood, their spirits live on, roaming the earth in search of bodies to inhabit (demon possession).

"the faith OF Jesus Christ"

 *Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.   Galatians 2:16  KJV

I don't believe "of Jesus" and "of Christ" means Jesus' or Christ's faith. The names "Jesus" and "Christ" are in the genitive case, so "of" is added, which is often descriptive or speaks of possession, but it has a lot of other usages, like a "bucket of balls": "of balls" is the content of the bucket. So "faith of Jesus [or Christ]" could be the content of faith. But even if "faith of Jesus [or Christ]" was Christ's faith, how does that save us, unless it means his faithfulness in going to the cross? Yet we still have to believe, as Galatians 2:16 says: even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith of Christ. That clearly says we believe in order to be justified.

*This quote is from the King James Version, which translates it "of Christ," while the New King James translates it "in Christ": Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Galatians 2:16

Christian Deism

I think the common mindset in our country is one that's deistic and nominally Christian.  It's a cultural mindset, one that is still accepting of things like Christmas and Easter, promoting a nominal Christianity (mostly in name only), and one that may be cynical of the Church and its form and ritual and certain traditional values.  They are deistic in that they loosely hold some commonly held beliefs with several religions, such as there is an intelligence ("God") who will judge us on the basis of our relative goodness, after death, but they are generally disinterested in and ignorant of the Bible.  They are "Christian" in that they identify more with it culturally (singing Christmas songs about Jesus and his birth) than with Judaism or Islam or Hinduism, and they may believe in a Jesus who went about doing good, believing if they are relatively good, as Jesus was, in their character and conduct, they will be ultimately approved by God.   

Belief and Doubt

There is a view that faith and belief are not the same, for the former is to have assurance about a thing, while the latter can include doubt.  I don't think this is really about a difference between the words "faith" and "belief," because both words can have the same meaning.   It seems the issue is whether there is a faith or belief that is defined as assurance and certainty, and a faith or belief that includes doubt.

The book of Hebrews describes faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, New American Standard)  But some want to argue that faith can include doubt, that faith is not necessarily assurance. There can be a faith that is assurance concerning a thing, while there is a faith that includes doubt concerning a thing.

The faith that includes doubt could be in which a person may act with a certain degree of trust but has doubts about what will happen.  For example, you could trust a friend due to his known character but be uncertain that he will be able to fulfill what he claims.

I see two things in view, as in the example just given, of which faith and doubt can latch onto.  It's not that I am having faith and doubt in the same thing at the same time.  There can be two objects of faith, one is the character and integrity of the individual that makes a promise or claim, and the other is in what they can promise or claim.   Humans can fail, no matter how trustworthy their character.   If they were God, you could believe their character and their claim, because you could not only believe in their character, but you could believe they would not fail in their claim.    

If belief is certainty, does that mean you have to have absolute knowledge concerning a thing?  I don't believe you do.  To be certain just means you are certain, it doesn't mean you have to have absolute knowledge on a metaphysical level (like God can have).  Does certainty mean that your belief has to be true?  I don't believe it does, because you can believe in something that is not true, yet your belief is still belief.  Certainty is not uncertainty.  

Is uncertainty unbelief?  It may not be a stubborn rejection of something, but uncertainty is not certainty: it involves doubt, whether it be a mild doubt or a strong one.  Having doubt is not necessarily bad; it just means you are not certain: you are not persuaded.  We can see in Scripture examples where faith and doubt are in contrast, such as when Peter begins to walk on water at the command of Christ, and yet begins to sink when he is frightened.  Jesus asked him why he doubted. Peter started out with certainty, but then uncertainty took over. Jesus said to Peter, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" Matthew 14:31  What was the "little faith?"  Maybe it recognizes that Peter believed Jesus could enable him to walk on water, but when he saw the waves, he became uncertain that he could walk on the water.  Peter limited the ability of Christ.  This is in contrast to the "great faith" of the Centurian in Matthew 8:5-13.

Jesus said that the Centurian had "great faith."  I believe the circumstance in which he believed revealed it as "great," not that there are different quantities of faith.  In Matthew 8:5-10, Jesus says to the Centurian that he will come to his house to heal the one in need, but the man says that Jesus does not need to go to his house but only speak the word from where he is at.   His faith is "great" because he believed Jesus could heal by simply speaking the word where he was at without coming to his house.  Others would expect Jesus to go where the healing was needed, but this man did not.  That was what made his faith great.

There was the situation where Jesus said, "All things are possible to him who believes.”  Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, “I do believe; help my unbelief.” Mark 9:23-24    This is used as an example of one having belief and doubt at the same time.  We don't know exactly what the man meant when he responded this way.  It could be his way of saying he wanted to believe, but he had doubts.  Or it could be that the man believed one thing but had doubts about another.  It would be like saying that you believe God is able to do such and such, but you don't know that he will.   I believe God can heal me, but I don't know that he will, or I doubt that he will.  I could believe that he will, if he gave me special revelation, but typically, that revelation doesn't come.   So maybe the man believed Jesus could cast the demon out of his son, but he didn't know if he would.   Or maybe it was just his way of saying he wanted to believe Jesus could do it, but still wasn't sure he could.

If a person believes in a thing (called "X"), but there is a view (called "Y") that would refute X, and that person does not believe in Y, but he acknowledges that Y is plausible, does that mean he doesn't really believe in X, or does he believe in X but with doubt (maybe a weak doubt)?   Is this an example of faith with doubt?   To say that Y is plausible, when Y refutes X, would seem to suggest some doubt about X.  Maybe it's just exercising some humility about the subject matter of which X and Y involve.  

Sometimes we believe in something that has arguments against it--that have some validity, but you are not persuaded by them, but you recognize them.  Sometimes we embrace a view because it makes the most sense and/or the majority hold to it, and yet there are other views that have arguments that seem plausible or valid, which you may not have the ability to refute, and yet you go with a different view.  It may not be doubt concerning those opposing arguments, but a recognition that they are valid or difficult to refute, but you take a different view.  And why do you take that different view?  Hopefully it is due to honest persuasion by the evidence and not just a stubborn rebellion.  

With the options of God existing (X) and not existing (Y), the former X seems more likely to you that Y.  You are convinced that the X option is the better one of the two, though you have doubts about X.  Being convinced X is the better option, you go with it and live accordingly. There's two objects here for faith: one is which is the better option; the second is which is true.  You are certain of one, but have doubts about the other.  You live according to X because you are persuaded it's the better option, but you have doubts that it is true.   I think this could be problematic in your walk with God, because of what Hebrews 11 says. It seems like if I am uncertain about the existence of God, then everything else kind of hangs in doubt that is connected.  Hebrews 11:6 says, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."  

If I doubt the divine authority of Scripture, then I'm more likely to doubt it's claims and promises.  But even here, it could be like the belief in God example:  I am certain that going with the divine authority of Scripture view is the better option, though I am uncertain that it is divinely authoritative.  But that uncertainty will probably cause you problems, even if you believe it is better to live your life as if scripture is divinely authoritative, because when difficulty comes, you can have a reason to disobey its instruction.

If says they have doubts about everything, that seems rather exaggerated.  Would you go to work every day, if you doubted you would be paid?  Faith is not about perfect knowledge but whether you are persuaded.  It's not doubt if I turn out to be wrong in my belief, because I can be convinced and wrong; it just means I was fooled.  

If a person has doubt about a thing, then they are not yet persuaded --understanding persuasion as belief.  If you are not yet certain, then it seems you do not believe it.  If you do not have assurance about a thing, then you do not yet believe in such a thing.  You may have to make a choice between two things of which both you are not sure, so you go with the thing that seems to have the better argument(s) or has the most support, but there's still uncertainty.   A person may want to believe something, and they may be close to believing it, but they still are not certain about it: they lack assurance and conviction about it. 

The author of Hebrews describes faith as assurance and conviction about things God has promised, and he gives many examples from the Old Testament of how it looks when one lives by faith.   That kind of faith believes in both the character of God and God's ability to fulfill what he promised. Those are 2 things which are connected.  To not believe in both would be to have faith and doubt, but ultimately, in that case, it would be to question the character of God, because God is not human, and he cannot fail.  Either you have assurance and conviction in what God promises or you are still unbelieving, whatever the reason or however close to believing you are; you are still not persuaded.  Faith is assurance and conviction.